geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: JCache dependency
Date Wed, 30 Mar 2016 06:12:21 GMT
Le 30 mars 2016 01:45, "Dmitriy Setrakyan" <dsetrakyan@apache.org> a écrit :
>
> I just mention to mention that Apache Ignite passes JCache TCK with
flying colors :)
>

True! Totally forgot tck were open! Didn't check sigtest, is it there too?
If so nothing blocking a 1.0.

> We have it integrated into our build routine and verify it using our CI
tests. In addition, it was verified by one of the JCache spec leads, Greg
Luck, who confirmed that Ignite complies with the spec.
>
> Given the above, can Geronimo provide us with JCache 1.0 spec JAR?
>
> D.
>
> On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 1:41 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibucau@gmail.com>
wrote:
>>
>> ok, let me try to make it clearer (and don't hesitate to shout if still
not ;)):
>>
>> TCK are not only @Test but also some bianary validations (aka sigtest
>> or signature tests) the spec jars need to pass. It basically checks
>> you respect the spec signature for the supported java version of the
>> spec. Not having TCK and not being related to a public spec (like BVal
>> or JBatch) makes this sigtest validation missing @asf side so until we
>> get this or somebody checks generated bytecode of spec jars (and not
>> sources) then we'll not use final versions to not show a spec
>> compliance we maybe don't have.
>>
>> Romain Manni-Bucau
>> @rmannibucau |  Blog | Github | LinkedIn | Tomitriber
>>
>>
>> 2016-03-29 21:33 GMT+02:00 John D. Ament <johndament@apache.org>:
>> >
>> >
>> > On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 3:04 PM Dmitriy Setrakyan <
dsetrakyan@apache.org>
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> We will switch the Ignite JAR to the 1.0-alpha-1 version from
Geronimo,
>> >> but I am still very confused.
>> >>
>> >> I do not understand why we need to check any TCK compliance when
creating
>> >> a JAR for the JSR107 spec. The TCK compliance should be checked
against an
>> >> implementation, not a spec.
>> >>
>> >
>> > I'm confused by this statement as well.  TCK is only applied to impl
so not
>> > sure why you might think that.
>> >
>> > What Romain was trying to convey was that the alpha-1 release
indicates that
>> > no implementation has checked it as TCK compliant.  One of the JSR
>> > requirements though is to produce a valid API JAR.  If someone can do
that,
>> > then this can likely be promoted to a 1.0 release.
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Is there any place in Apache documentation explaining this process?
>> >>
>> >> D.
>> >>
>> >> On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 1:57 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau
>> >> <rmannibucau@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> Le 28 mars 2016 10:15, "Dmitriy Setrakyan" <dsetrakyan@apache.org>
a
>> >>> écrit :
>> >>> >
>> >>> > John,
>> >>> >
>> >>> > I am still a bit confused. I was talking about the version of the
>> >>> > JCache
>> >>> spec API, essentially only interfaces. The spec does not have any
>> >>> implementation, nor implies that every project importing or
depending on
>> >>> the spec must be compliant with the spec.
>> >>> >
>> >>> > In my view implementation and TCK compliance are a different
matter,
>> >>> > and
>> >>> it should be up to the project community itself to declare the
compliance
>> >>> with a certain spec and pass the TCK.
>> >>> >
>> >>> > Am I wrong?
>> >>> >
>> >>>
>> >>> Yes, while not passing sigtest practise is to not release 1.0.
>> >>>
>> >>> > D.
>> >>> >
>> >>> >
>> >>> > On Sun, Mar 27, 2016 at 9:01 AM, John D. Ament <
johndament@apache.org>
>> >>> wrote:
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> Dmitriy,
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> I think what Romain is referring to is other TCKs.  Generally,
>> >>> >> geronimo
>> >>> JAR versions don't reflect the version of spec that they implement.
>> >>> There
>> >>> may be alpha releases that match EDRs, or alphas that are based on
the
>> >>> final version but with minor tweaks.
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> For reference, Apache ActiveMQ Artemis relies on alpha2 of
the
JMS 2
>> >>> spec.
https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/blob/master/pom.xml#L131
>> >>> >> It's feature complete, and Artemis passes the TCK, its just
alpha2
>> >>> because we haven't done a thorough enough job of making sure the API
is
>> >>> sane.
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> John
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> On Sun, Mar 27, 2016 at 11:54 AM Dmitriy Setrakyan
>> >>> >> <dsetrakyan@apache.org>
>> >>> wrote:
>> >>> >>>
>> >>> >>> Romain, I am not sure what you mean by not having access
to TCK.
Are
>> >>> you talking about validating compatibility with JCAche using the TCK
[1]?
>> >>> In this case, Apache Ignite does pass the TCK. Moreover, the TCK
seems to
>> >>> be licensed under Apache 2.0 [2]. Can you please explain?
>> >>> >>>
>> >>> >>> [1] https://github.com/jsr107/jsr107tck
>> >>> >>> [2] https://github.com/jsr107/jsr107tck/blob/master/LICENSE.txt
>> >>> >>>
>> >>> >>> On Sun, Mar 27, 2016 at 2:35 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau <
>> >>> rmannibucau@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>> >>>>
>> >>> >>>> Alpha cause asf doesnt have oracle tck so we cant validate
binary
>> >>> compat
>> >>> >>>> but it targets jcache 1.0. More a legal thing than
anything
else. If
>> >>> you
>> >>> >>>> have access to tck and can validate the binaries we
can move on
1.0
>> >>> >>>> Le 27 mars 2016 00:21, "Dmitriy Setrakyan" <
dsetrakyan@apache.org> a
>> >>> écrit :
>> >>> >>>>
>> >>> >>>> > Hi Romain,
>> >>> >>>> >
>> >>> >>>> > The only issue I see is the version. JSR107 spec
is on version
>> >>> >>>> > 1.0.0
>> >>> [1],
>> >>> >>>> > while the Geronimo JCache jar is on version 1.0-alpha-1.
>> >>> >>>> >
>> >>> >>>> > Any chance you can upgrade the version?
>> >>> >>>> >
>> >>> >>>> > [1] https://github.com/jsr107/jsr107spec/tree/v1.0.0
>> >>> >>>> >
>> >>> >>>> > D.
>> >>> >>>> >
>> >>> >>>> > On Sat, Mar 26, 2016 at 1:36 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau
<
>> >>> rmannibucau@gmail.com
>> >>> >>>> > > wrote:
>> >>> >>>> >
>> >>> >>>> >> Hi Dmitriy,
>> >>> >>>> >>
>> >>> >>>> >> why not reusing geronimo jar? Generally @apache
spec are
owned by
>> >>> >>>> >> geronimo and reused as much as possible using
geronimo as
>> >>> >>>> >> umbrella
>> >>> >>>> >> spec project. What's the issue you hit?
>> >>> >>>> >>
>> >>> >>>> >> Romain Manni-Bucau
>> >>> >>>> >> @rmannibucau |  Blog | Github | LinkedIn |
Tomitriber
>> >>> >>>> >>
>> >>> >>>> >>
>> >>> >>>> >> 2016-03-26 21:20 GMT+01:00 Dmitriy Setrakyan
>> >>> >>>> >> <dsetrakyan@apache.org
>> >>> >:
>> >>> >>>> >> > Sorry, this is the JCache maven dependency
I was referring
to:
>> >>> >>>> >> >
>> >>> >>>> >>
>> >>>
>> >>>
http://mvnrepository.com/artifact/org.apache.geronimo.specs/geronimo-jcache_1.0_spec
>> >>> >>>> >> >
>> >>> >>>> >> >
>> >>> >>>> >> > On Sat, Mar 26, 2016 at 1:18 PM, Dmitriy
Setrakyan <
>> >>> >>>> >> dsetrakyan@apache.org>
>> >>> >>>> >> > wrote:
>> >>> >>>> >> >>
>> >>> >>>> >> >> Hello Geronimo community!
>> >>> >>>> >> >>
>> >>> >>>> >> >> I have noticed that Geronimo implements
JCache spec and is
>> >>> >>>> >> >> using
>> >>> its
>> >>> >>>> >> own
>> >>> >>>> >> >> JCache library hosted in Apache maven
and licensed under
>> >>> >>>> >> >> Apache
>> >>> 2.0
>> >>> >>>> >> license
>> >>> >>>> >> >> [1].
>> >>> >>>> >> >>
>> >>> >>>> >> >> We, in Apache Ignite community also
have implemented
JCache
>> >>> >>>> >> specification
>> >>> >>>> >> >> and would like to do something similar.
Do you know what
steps
>> >>> do we
>> >>> >>>> >> need to
>> >>> >>>> >> >> take in order to have the latest
JCache spec version
licensed
>> >>> under
>> >>> >>>> >> Apache
>> >>> >>>> >> >> 2.0?
>> >>> >>>> >> >>
>> >>> >>>> >> >> Thanks,
>> >>> >>>> >> >> Dmitriy Setrakyan
>> >>> >>>> >> >> Apache Ignite, PMC chair
>> >>> >>>> >> >
>> >>> >>>> >> >
>> >>> >>>> >>
>> >>> >>>> >
>> >>> >>>> >
>> >>> >>>
>> >>> >>>
>> >>> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>
>

Mime
View raw message